Appeal No. 95-4184
Application 07/813,080
corresponds to claimed steps (a), (b), and the "transmitting"
step of step (c), where the device 10 is the data center. If
the request is within the authorization provided by the
software license, device 10 provides a response to the central
processor 16 indicating that operation of the program is
authorized and the program is then permitted to run (col. 5,
lines 12-18). This corresponds to the remainder of claimed
step (c) and to steps (c), (d), and (e).
We agree with the examiner's handling of appellant's
arguments regarding Robert and Dunham in the Examiner's
Answer. In particular, we agree that appellant does not point
to the limitations in the claims that are relied on to support
the arguments and we do not find supporting limitations;
therefore, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with
the claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1,
5 (CCPA 1982) ("Many of appellant's arguments fail from the
outset because . . . they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims."). For example, the arguments about
a "license" seem to ignore that Robert performs the recited
steps; it does not make any difference that the steps are
performed in connection with a licensing arrangement or other
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007